Google Chromecast Review

To say that my first impression of the Google Chromecast was poor is a bit of an understatement: When it was first released in August, this device was nearly impossible to set up and was barely functional. Since then, Chromecast has improved. And while it's still not a good value compared to a Roku device or Apple TV, it's a viable alternative for those who—for whatever reason—have invested in Google's digital entertainment ecosystem.

I wrote about my travails trying to get Chromecast to work when it was first introduced in Google Chromecast First Impressions and Photos, and quickly decided I wouldn't be able to review this device unless it improved dramatically. And, over the ensuring five months, it has improved, though to be fair, it's still not a viable, general purpose living room set-top box alternative to the Roku or Apple TV, both of which remain far better values.

So, yes, my argument in Cheap vs. Good Value still applies. But in positioning Chromecast as an inexpensive way to "cast"—really, stream—audio and content from the device(s) you may already own, Google can make a case for Chromecast. And that's especially true for those customers who use Google Play Music (potentially with the All Access subscription) or have purchased or rented Play Video-based TV shows or movies.

Chromecast remains more complex from a setup perspective than Roku or Apple TV devices, in part because unlike those more full-featured alternatives, the Chromecast is not a standalone solution. Instead, you must use a compatible device—an Android handset or tablet, an iPhone or iPad, a PC with Google's Chrome web browser, or a Chromebook—in tandem with Chromecast at all times, including the convoluted initial set up.

Now one could make the argument that most people do already have at least one of those devices, and I agree with that assertion. But most people who use a Roku or Apple TV already have at least one of those devices, too. And when they use an Apple TV or Roku, they can just use a simple remote, and aren't forced to keep turning to their device, and waking it up repeatedly, just to handle basic playback control.

Put another way, I personally believe that Apple TV and Roku more closely adhere to the tenets of cloud computing, where each device you use to access your cloud-based data is a consumer, or end-point, but more to the point an equal to all others. With Chromecast, a more convoluted three tier process occurs, where your cloud-based data is accessed from a device and handed off to a third device (Chromecast) so it can get to your TV. It's like an unnecessary middleman.

Except of course that it is necessary, for those who do use Google Play-based services. At this moment, the only way to access those services is through a web browser or via an Android (or iOS) handset or tablet (or, for the 17 people that have one, a Google TV). Could Google get these services on Roku, at least? Probably. I don't know why they haven't. But for now, at least, the "best" option you have for getting Google Play content to play, in high definition if it's a video, is with a Chromecast and one of those other devices you already own.

Once you get past setup, which involves installing the Chromecast app on your Android or iOS device, or the Chromecast browser plug-in in Google Chrome (PC, Mac) or Chromebook, performing a series of voodoo-like tricks in which you temporarily access the Chromecast's built-in Wi-Fi network you can configure it to use your real Wi-Fi network (don't ask), you can explore the world of Chromecast-compatible mobile and web apps. From these specially-designed apps, you can "cast" audio and video content from the cloud, through your device, through the Chromecast, and to the HDTV.

So what are those apps?

Google Play Music and Google Play Video, and YouTube of course—each is owned by Google—but also Netflix, Hulu Plus, HBO GO, Pandora, RealPlayer Cloud, VEVO, Red Bull.TV, Songza, Plex, PostTV and Viki. Nothing from Amazon or Microsoft. And of course nothing from Apple.

Given the niche this device fills, I focused on the Google stuff, and I tested Chromecast with several different other devices, including my Nexus 5 handset, my Nexus 7 mini-tablet, my iPhone 5S, a PC laptop running Chrome, and my HP Chromebook 11, using both native mobile and web apps. Put simply, the mobile apps offer much better performance, but any of these will work in a pinch. And when you consider the low price of this device ($35), I could see it being part of a cheap (but complex) set up for the struggling college student or other youngsters that see no value in traditional cable-based TV programming.

Google Play Music "casting" from the iPhone

Basically, if you're using a compatible app, you will see a Chromecast icon that lets you cast the currently playing content through the Chromecast and to your HDTV. You can then continue to control the playback from your handheld device or PC.

Google Play video playback experience

What I did really like about Chromecast, surprisingly, was the video playback quality. Whether the video was coming from a handset, tablet, or web browser, it was rock-solid and in gorgeous HD. This is particularly impressive when you consider that Google does not support HD playback of Google Play Video content in a web browser on Chromebook or PC/Mac. But when you cast that content from those devices, through Chromecast to your HDTV—voila—it's in HD. (And if there's closed captioning, that can be cast as well.)

The other interesting aspect to Chromecast is that it works across multiple devices at the same time. I don't see a huge use for this per se, but I was able to move between Nexus 5, iPhone 5S and Chromebook 11 while a video was playing on the HDTV. The app on each correctly reflected the playing app, offered playback controls, and let me switch to a different TV show or movie.

Google Play Video casting" a movie from the Nexus 5

Put simply, Chromecast is no Roku or Apple TV, but it does serve a purpose and you can't beat the price. If you don't mind a little set up complexity—not beyond the capabilities of anyone who'd read this site, but not something my parents or siblings could handle easily, if at all—and need to access your Google Play content in the living room, the Chromecast can certainly make that happen. I recommend it only for that reason, though I suspect there's a small market for the gadget happy as well.

Discuss this Article 38

I don't own a Chromecast but of the apps that it supports, the only ones I use are YouTube and HBO Go. I'd also like TWiT on the list of supported sites but right now Google put up the velvet rope and only is allowing some apps and even fewer apps (I'd like to use MSND's Channel9 on my TV).

I'd also like to see Chromecast support local, on-device (phone/tablet) content w/out the need for third-party apps.

You can access TWIT (at least Windows Weekly) and MSDN Channel 9 videos on YouTube. That is supported. Just checked using my Nexus 7. I cannot 'cast' Chrome on the Nexus 7 but I understand that is an option on the Mac or Win versions of Chrome. You can get to TWIT and MSDN Ch 9 that way as well.

I have a Chromecast (it was $35, how could I not?). I get the impression that it doesn't actually stream from your device to the dongle. I believe it streams from the cloud to the dongle, and your device, Nexus/Browser, sets up what to stream, and acts as a controller. That would explain the better quality of video regardless of what you are casting 'from', as well as the 'seamless' ability to switch control devices in the middle of a session. Note that essentially all of the supported apps rely on cloud resident content. There aren't really any that would be casting content that is ONLY available on a personal device. The one mitigating service there is PLEX. It provides a way to cast personal content. Note your personal content, pictures, videos, etc., is uploaded to PLEX, and is thereafter, stream-able from the cloud.

BTW, my own experience in setting up the Chromcast was uneventful. loaded the app (Nexus 7), found the Chromcast, ran the setup steps and was 'on-line'. I just didn't experience the issues you had.

Although I don't own one, this is my understanding of how chromecast streaming currently works too.

I do hope they add the ability to mirror local content from your device though. For streaming content from the cloud, I prefer the standalone solutions (Apple TV, Roku). But I would like to be able to use the Chromecast to mirror photos and home movies stored on my phone to the TV. This is the only use case I would purchase it for and I would have no problem with the price for this. I would just think of it as an invisible cable that is no more expensive than the hdmi cables I was buying a few years ago.

You're correct. The content is streamed straight from the cloud to the Chromecast. The only time it doesn't really do that is when casting a tab or your whole desktop.

I also agree that setup was pretty painless. It just sucks that the Chromecast only runs on 2.4Ghz and all my devices are connected on 5Ghz. I believe that has been causing the issues I've been having where playback randomly stop for Play Music content or randomly disconnecting YouTube but I gave my Chromecast away and haven't bought a new one yet since my Xbox One and PS3 do everything the Chromecast could do except for Play Movies.

Can you cast the whole desktop? On a Chromebook perhaps? I can't do it on the Nexus.
One additional datapoint on the belief the content must come from the web, not the device. I can start a cast from my Nexus 7 and then turn it off completely. I mean power off shut down, needs to reboot to turn back on. Cleary it is not streaming from the tablet. Once rebooted, and chromcast restarted and the dongle re-acquired, I can resume controlling the cast.

This quite different from Miracast and AirPlay, which actually send the device content to the 'receiver' over your local network.

The Google way allows them to gather stats on what people are casting more easily, I would imagine. No idea why they would want to ;)

You said, "...when casting a tab or your whole desktop."
Is it really capable of casting my laptop's desktop (means whatever is showing on my PC screen) and so, can it play the photos/videos stored in my mobile anyhow.
Pls do tell.

For price/content/quality point Chromecast is superior in rest of the world compared anything offered by Microsoft or Apple. People who have dumped Windows laptops for Android tablets this offers very good product for cheap price. Google strenght is to offer same value to rest of the world instead of being stuck in USA like Microsoft.

As an android user and someone who does not subscribe to any type of standard cable, the chromecast is the near perfect device for me. Netfilx, Hulu, Youtube, and Google Music are all I really use regardless of TV streaming device and I basically always have either my phone or tablet on me.

I did have significant issues with it initially though. There would be days where it would just lose its connection to my wifi and I could not reconnect it - resetting wifi network sometimes helped. There have been a couple of chromecast system updates since then and I haven't had any problems for a few months, but it was incredibly frustrating early on.

"convoluted initial set up"...I'm a little confused by this. I plugged mine into the back of my receiver (a usb port on the back powers it, which is very nice) and the set up took less time than setting up an Xbox or Playstation, only requiring a one time download of the Chromecast app. I've also found the it to be much better for watching Nexflix on then the app that came with my new Samsung TV. As a bonus, I can listen to all of my music I have stored on Google Play (up to 20,000 songs stored FREE) through my stereo. Well worth the $35, no matter what spin you try to put on it.

I have a Chromecast and I don't really use it. But Paul, you must realize that most content isn't streamed from the device. It just controls the playback once it's started. You don't have to leave the device on or use battery.

Sneaky, you edited the post after people pointed out the mistake. Isn't the common thing to do on a blog is to strike out the incorrect statement, not just remove it. It kind of makes the whole review suspect.

You wonder why Google does this, and not just put content on the Roku. They have for Youtube, but the obvious reason Google is going this direction is numbers. Roku, at most, has sold 8M devices in the last few years. It makes more sense for Google to push their own device than depend on Roku, who hasn't come close to selling as many devices as there are Android/Google Play users.

As for Microsoft & Amazon, Amazon has said they are "evaluating it" and both of them are free to make their apps Chromecast compatible if they want.

It took me six minutes, maybe seven, to set up my Chromecast last month. And the most complicated part was finding a power outlet. The rest, including downloading the app and connecting to the WiFi network, was quick and painless.

This http://airtame.com./index.php seems like it will be a great alternative with a lot of unique features. And you can use it over your existing network. A bit pricier than Chromecast, but in line with Apple TV. It projects to your TV whatever is on your computer or smartphone (including Windows Phone!) and other computers on the network. It was an Indegogo source-funded project. I ordered 3!

I'm skeptical on that 'including Windows Phone' bit. Since it appears that the source of the stream needs to have an app installed, and that app would need some significant access into the hardware/software on the source, and that sort of interaction/api capability is pretty limited, I hadn't jumped on this. If it actually has WP support when it comes out, I will absolutely buy one. [BTW, the only such capability that even comes close at this point is Nokia's Beamer app, and it is produced by a hardware OEM, with great insight into the hardware/software]

I'm genuinely surprised by the results of this review. The multiple devices thing would be good for me, because I tend to set one device down and pick up another and forget where I put the first one. Lol.

On a whim we took it along to our rental house on the Oregon coast. Easily plugged it into the large LCD TV and had a fun evening surfing various YouTube video's using our Samsung Galaxy Tab 2. Cheap entertainment for the 4 of us, and a little BreakingBad to finish things off. Works just fine, especially at $35.

Perhaps you are aware of this and decided it wasn't important to make the distinction, but you have talked several times about the your devices (phone, tablet, computer) streaming the content to the Chomecast. This is not how it works. The app on the device actually pushes a URL for a webapp written against the Chromecast APIs to the Chromecast, which then loads the app. Usually the app is just a media player which immediately begins playing the requested content. The controlling device then serves as a remote, just sending messages to the webapp on the Chromecast telling it to play, pause, etc.

This architecture actually has some pretty significant benefits. First, it doesn't tie up your device's processor by making it be the go-between for a data-heavy audio/video stream. Second, it allows the content to keep playing, even if the mobile device gets disconnected. Third, it allows the app-maker to retain complete control of their own service. Because the app-maker gets to run their own webapp on the Chromecast, they have control over how that app works. They can enforce their own policies on things like user authentication, DRM, etc. They can update their app without ever even talking to Google. I think that this will actually come to matter rather a lot: I really don't see why every media store owner (or at least all of the ones not trying to push their own device ecosystem) wouldn't support this platform. It's just so easy to do and there is so little risk, since they retain such a high level of control.

I got a Chromecast for Christmas and all I can say is... what a piece of junk.

It took me 6 hours to get it to connect to any of my WiFi networks, and once I did it has been more than problematic. Netflix refuses to work at all, browser tab mirroring is barely functional, and very often when I try to play YouTube videos it plays the wrong video entirely, if it even decides to try to work at all.

The software has a really, really long way to go before this thing is even remotely acceptable. This is easily the most buggy product ever released by Google.

Thanks for the review, it's actually helped me understand its usage more... I was under the impression anything from Chrome could be streamed (such as iPlayer/4oD etc.) but obviously this isn't the case, what a shame.

This means Chromecast is completely destroyed by Miracast, in fact, how comes Miracast was omitted from this review? In my opinion, it's the best option.

Then there's this:http://airtame.com./index.php#
It's more expensive but does a lot more. It was an Indiegogo crowd-funded project. Works with PCs, Macs and Linux as well as all smartphone, including Windows Phone!

I use these almost exclusively for presentations. The "experimental" full-screen casting in Windows works well except for the lack of a mouse cursor. However, when doing a slideshow presentation, the lack of a visible mouse cursor is not a bad thing.

I have gotten other people to understand how to use this much better than WiDi which was pretty much a total failure that nobody used. I even have a WiDi-enabled TV and several WiDi-enabled laptops... nobody could figure it out.

I am still waiting for the killer tech that makes AppleTV, Roku, and Chromecast all obsolete. I'm not holding my breath, though.

Being able to use multiple devices at once and it's cost are the main reasons I got one. I have friends come over and we load up a playlist of videos from Youtube and have a jam session. Each person can just browse and add videos as they like. Basically, we are all DJs. We had so much fun doing it that I bought 3 during Christmas and gave them to friends.

At a mere $35, it was an easy gamble to get one for the bedroom LCD TV.

The salesmen were completely ignorant of the product, could not address even the one question I had: would it surf the web with Chrome? (Keep this in mind, because this is the MAJOR point here. Google appears to intentionally hide these material facts about the product.)

Installation was fast and simple. Connecting to my router a breeze. Adding the Chromecast driver to my android tablet was also simple and fast. I was able to cast a perfect stream from the YouTube app in 5 minutes of opening the box. Same with the NetFlix app.

But, I had no media player on my android tablet that could cast local media content to the device. (More on that later.)

Now it was time to get the web surfing function. I downloaded Chrome and installed same to my android tablet effortlessly and found it did not have the casting extension for their product. I did a Google search for the casting extension and learned that THERE IS NO CURRENT CHROME-BASED CASTING EXTENSION for Android devices. (Their own operating system and this casting extension for their browser is STILL in development.)

But the Casting extension for Windows was available, so I got my laptop, loaded Chrome to it and installed the casting extension. Sure enough, any site I went to, Chrome flawlessly streamed (thanks to a clear router signal) any video media I requested to my tablet.

A simple click of the casting button and the tablet directed the stream to the Chromecast dongle - where upon the combined audio/video stream stuttered horribly on both laptop and Chromecast fed TV. A terrific stream from provider to tablet and then a terrible stream from tablet hand-off to Chromecast. (What a surprise when I noted the next day that this NEW Windows extension is a BETA product! It sure is, baby!!)

Okay, I tabled that debacle for later research and moved on to more pressing matters: this $35 unit isn't worth much if all I can cast is content from their partners. (And for me, that's really just NetFlix.)

A little android app research and I found AVIA MEDIA PLAYER. (Write it down kids, the best $2.99 you'll spend.) This little DLNA app sees all your local - my android tablet - content as well as all the media library content on all your (PC, at least) machines connected to the home router. Simple to install, buy and operate, this app allows flawless casting of any media. Except, Chromecast doesn't accept all content.

No, really! It only handles MP3 and MP4 streams - and will not accept streams of .avi, .mkv, .wmv or .wtv. (So forget casting recorded WMC content to Chromecast. Gonna have to convert your entire library to MP4 - with the precisely right audio codec - to cast same to your Chromecast device. Dunno what that codec is, but a Google search reveals that not all MP4 audio tracks work with this device.)

OMG. Half way there. I can see and cast my media library but only the portion that is MP3 or MP4!

Time to chat with Tech support and solve the browser tab casting, stutter problem. Nice guys, all, but there is no solution. You can have a 2Ghz plus processor, no other apps open and operating on AC and it will stutter, stutter, stu..stu....stutter!.

Here's why: all the apps redirect your router to take the stream directly from the internet source. But, rather than tell your router to redirect the media stream fed to the laptop and reroute the feed to the Chromecast dongle, THEY MAKE THE LAPTOP FEED THE STREAM back through the router to the dongle. The laptop now must receive the stream and resend it back through the router - making it do double receive and send duty. All rather than hand off the stream to the Dongle via the router.

Now if you don't think that's stupid enough, making the laptop receive and also send - putting added strain on processor and power consumption, the Chrome tab window and stream content remains on the laptop as well- so it's using resources to drive the laptop screen as well. So it stutters just like the TV. From a clear stream when receiving to two stuttering events when casting.

Now ask yourself, why let apps like NetFlix and Avia Media Player make a hand off from the originating source to the Chromecast in a single direction through the router, but make your PC laptop (controller) receive AND send AND refresh the laptop stream with content intended for the Chromecast fed TV? And why make the router open 2+ ports to get the stream to the dongle - a feed to the laptop and then receiving the return from the laptop, a feed to the Chromecast dongle?

Who can't see this is gonna put tremendous load on the controlling laptop causing inevitable audio/video problems on the TV? Not Google?

And let's be clear, there is no transcoding going on here, Chrome is not reading an .avi stream, recoding and sending an MP4 stream to the dongle. If it's not a MP3 or MP4 stream - Chrome will not cast it to it's dongle.

And there is no indication, if and when the Android casting extension is released, it will operate in any other way. Google's engineers have chosen to develop a browser casting extension that is intended to provide terrible web stream support. I can only assume, clever as they are, they don't want the public having a $35 access to just ANY streaming content on the web. They want you to use or buy services strictly from their app partners. So dumb down access to the free source and make perfect the stream that will cost you.

So what you have left is a very fine WiFi receiver that can handle playing back your MP3 and MP4 media library from controller or any machine on your local router network, plus receive any feed from select partner apps.

And in summary, here's what they don't tell you and you don't get:

No present Android support for casting media from the web (via Chrome and Cast extension.)
Bad Windows casting of media from the web (via Chrome and Cast extension.)
No access to media library casting from your local network unless you buy a third party app.
Extremely limited media playback options (MP3 and MP4 - with correct audio codec.)

And Google doesn't make any of this information available prior to purchase. It's not on their site, it's not on their box, it's not shared by sales associates and it doesn't appear in mainstream articles on the product. At least not that I saw prior to purchase.

Hello. The casting of webpages from windows and mac works great with the chromecast extension in the chrome webstore but the more powerful your pc the better when your casting a tab. The extension has options for standard, high, and extreme quality. I see you're having issues with it but it works for most people. Then you talked about playing local media. The answer is Plex. Plex is the best casting app. Not only can you cast it to any chromecast enable tv but you can also cast it to tablets and phones and lets say you want to take it with you Plex has a check out option that automaticly downloads it you device in a format that is just for that device. You can also set plex to stream videos to your device while your on the road through your home internet connection. This is a serious piece of software for anyone who has their own multimedia collection.

I think of the Chromecast as the ultimate thin client. Ultimately, all you really need to create a compelling platform is to have a device that can push pixels to a display at a high enough rate and resolution. In this model the UI and services become incredibly malleable and updateable, residing fully on the controlling device and "in the cloud". It seems that perhaps Google has big plans in this arena, and they intentionally started releasing the gadget in the wild before the platform was fully baked in order to get some feedback from early adopters who are either geeky or bought it because it was cheap and could stream Netflix. I anticipate more being added on to the value side of things over the next several months. We'll see!

I have three Chromecasts. My experience is quite different from yours Paul. I found the installation process to be quick and easy.

I also have a roku box and a tivo. Using Netflix and Hulu Plus via an ipad through Chromecast is a pleasure compared with the painfully slow tivo. With regard to roku, there is more content on roku but YouTube is only available on one roku model so far. I can watch YT on roku through Plex, which is awkward. The YT smartphone app through Chromecast is much better than the roku's tile interface.

In fact, it's a lot easier to find your windows weekly netcasts on YT via Chromecast than through the TWIT app on roku. Roku's search feature doesn't include all content, so a search for "Thurrott" yields nothing, whereas I can find your podcasts on YT via search or a subscription.

Using a remote on roku is OK unless you need to type a search term. Roku is aware that remotes are a lousy for typing, which is why they wrote their smartphone apps with built in virtual keyboards. Since it's easier to use a smartphone anyway, I don't think the roku's remote is a material advantage over the Chromecast

Personally I love the Chromecast as is. Additional content should be available later this year, which will only make it better.